Sandico v. Piguing

114. Sandico v.
Piguing Novation effects a substitution or modification of an obligation by another or an

G.R. No. L-26115 extinguishment of one obligation by the creation of another. In this case, we fail to see what
November 29, 1971 new or modified obligation arose out of the payment by Paras of the reduced amount.
By: Gayares
Topic: Novation In addition, to sustain novation necessitates that the same be so declared in unequivocal
Petitioner: Carlos Sandico, Sr. and Teopisto Timbol terms, which must be clearly and unmistakably shown by the express agreement of the
Respondent: Hon. Minerva Piguing, in her capacity as CFI Judge, and Desiderio Paras parties or by acts of equivalent import, or that there is complete and substantial
Ponente: Castro, J. incompatibility between the two obligations.
DOCTRINE: Novation results in two stipulations: (1) to extinguish an obligation; and (2) to The original judgment obliges Paras to do two things: (1) to recognize the easement; and (2)
substitute a new one in its place. Novation effects a substitution or modification of an to pay the petitioners a total of P6,000. The full satisfaction requires both specific
obligation by another or an extinguishment of one obligation by the creation of another. performance and a payment of sum.
FACTS: In this case, the judgment debt is fully satisfied. There is no valid objection to the parties
 Sps. Sandico and Timbol, as administrator of the Estate of late Sixta Paras, obtained entering into an agreement regarding the monetary obligation under the judgment of the CA,
judgment in their favor against Desiderio Paras for the recognition of easement reducing the same from P6,000 to P4,000. The payment by Paras of the lesser amount, which
rights of the former plus payment of damages. was accepted by the petitioners, completely extinguished the judgment debt and released
 The judgment debt was later on agreed by them to be reduced from P6,000 to him from his pecuniary liability.
P4,000 and was subsequently paid by Paras.
 When the spouses demanded for performance of the part of the judgment about Neither do we appreciate the petitioners’ stand that, according to their agreement with
the recognition of the easement rights, they demanded that Paras rebuild and Paras, their assent to the reduction of the money judgment was subject to the condition that
reconstruct the irrigation canal in its original dimensions. he will reconstruct and reopen the portion of the irrigation canal passing through his land
immediately. The petitioners even state that the receipt of August 31, 1964 embodies this
 The petitioners and the Paras reached a settlement agreeing to the reduction of the
condition.
money judgment from P6,000 to P4,000. Thus, Paras, on August 5, 1964, paid the
petitioners the sum of P3,000.
The terms of the receipt dated August 31, 1964, we find clear and definite. The receipt
 Paras made another payment in the amount of P1,000 as evidenced by a receipt
neither expressly nor impliedly declares that the reduction of the money judgment was
issued by the petitioners’ counsel. This receipt of August 31, 1964 is hereunder
conditioned on the respondent’s reconstruction and reopening of the irrigation canal.
reproduced in full: “P1.000.00 RECEIVED from Mr. Desiderio Paras the sum of ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00), Philippine Currency, in full satisfaction of the
The receipt merely embodies the recognition by the respondent of his obligation to
money judgment rendered against him in Civil Case No. 1554 of the Court of First
reconstruct the irrigation canal. And the receipt simply requires the respondent to comply
Instance of Pampanga, it being understood that the portion of the final judgment
with such obligation “immediately”. The obligation of the respondent remains as a portion of
rendered in the said case ordering him to reconstruct the irrigation canal in
the Court of Appeals’ judgment. In fact, the petitioners themselves, in their letter dated
question shall be complied with by him immediately.
November 5, 1964, sent to the respondent, demanding that the latter reconstruct the
 However, Paras refused as to the reconstruction of the irrigation canal; hence, the
irrigation canal immediately, referred to the same not as a condition but as the portion of the
spouses asked the court a quo in a motion for execution to compel him or hold him
judgment in civil case 1554.
in contempt.
 An alias writ of execution was issued, but on appeal it was ordered quashed by the
DISPOSITIVE: Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the CA did not act in
CA because the parties “novated by subsequent agreement” the judgment in
excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its judgment.
question, thus there is nothing more to be executed.
ISSUE: W/N the subsequent agreement between the parties extinguished Paras’ obligation
in the judgment of the court a quo?
RULING: NO. Novation results in two stipulations: (1) to extinguish an obligation; and (2) to
substitute a new one in its place.

Sandico v. Piguing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sandico v. Piguing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

114. Sandico v.

Piguing Novation effects a substitution or modification of an obligation by another or an

You might also like